Anyone who think renewables can replace fossil fuels does not understand the limits of renewables. These are their exceptionally low energy density and the intermittency of the most energy dense form for renewable, namely solar.
The low energy density means that huge amounts of land and materials are required to capture renewable energy. The public will not accept this as the impacts will be worse than those of continuing to burn fossil fuels.
The huge amount of energy required to make and install solar PV is so high that it is not clear that they can generate more energy than is required to make them, at least when installed in higher latitudes (north of the Alps).
The intermittency is a problem because there is affordable way of storing this energy on the required scale. Batteries are still over a 100 times to expensive and there are upper limits in how much they could store.
The total failure of any country or region to replace fossil fuels with intermittent renewables should serve as a warning but it seems the pro-renewable lobby are incredibly effective at hiding these failures.
There really is only one proven way to eliminated fossil fuels, and that is nuclear power. This is expensive but only because it is regulated in an insane way. It could be far cheaper than fossil fuels if we valued deaths nuclear energy the same as deaths from other energy sources. At the moment we value them at least 100 times more, which is irrational.
Estimate how much storage the grid would need where most power from intermittent sources and there was no backup generation from, for example fossil fuels.
In the UK one would need a minimum of 2 weeks storage to avoid having to cut electricity during long windless winter periods, where solar contributes a trivial amount.
The UK grid consumes slightly over 30GW.
For 30 GW of power over 14 days requires at 10 TWh (10^10 kWh) of battery storage.
The current costs of lithium ion batteries is $150/kWh. They have been stagnant at this level for 3 years now.
Calculate the cost of the batteries needed.
$150 x 10^10 = $1.5 trillion.
The UK GDP is ~$3 trillion per year.
You get the picture?
We could NOT conceivably produce this many lithium batteries in the near future. But that is another story...
"For 30 GW of power over 14 days requires at 10 TWh (10^10 kWh) of battery storage. The current costs of lithium ion batteries is $150/kWh. They have been stagnant at this level for 3 years now.
Calculate the cost of the batteries needed.
$150 x 10^10 = $1.5 trillion.
The UK GDP is ~$3 trillion per year.
You get the picture?"
Yes, I get the picture. You're not considering all the possibilities of storage. The company Form Energy is going to start construction later this year on a plant in West Virginia that is intended to produce iron/air batteries with multi-day electrical storage, at a cost of $20/kWh:
So your picture of $1.5 trillion in cost would instead become 20/150 x $1.5 trillion = $200 billion. And that's not something that needs to be done in a year. Spread that capital expense over 20 years, and the cost becomes $10 billion per year.
And even that ignores another reasonable situation, which would be to simply leave fossil fuel stations in such a condition that they could be started up with a few days' notice. That wouldn't be 100% renewable, but it would be 99% renewable, assuming these two-week periods only occur every few years.
I did not include possible future battery technology in my estimate. We shall have to wait and see if these new batteries are adequate for grid scale storage.
Like hydrogen and ammonium synthesis, battery storage for 100 backup remains speculative and unproven. By all means explore them, but it would be foolish to rely on them working out.
As a fairly neutral/“civilian” observer of this debate, I agree that Rogers heavy reliance on the French nuclear example comes across as disingenuous and unconvincing. What we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?
It’s a pretty straightforward question, at least to give your opinion on. Alex Epstein gives his view very clearly. Roger seems more slippery and evasive.
"What we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?"
No, this cannot be done
I do not know of a single energy expert who thinks this can be done
Renewables (wind, solar) can play a big role (how big is debated) but alone they cannot get the world off of fossil fuels
My question is why should wind and solar play a big role? When you look at the amount of materials it takes for even modest increases in wind and solar...and land use....and the the fact that the average useful life is approximately 20 years, why should they play a big role? An increase in wind and solar is an increase in fossil fuels to mine the massive amounts of materials in order to get low value intermittent energy. It's just as dumb as supporting ethanol.
"My question is why should wind and solar play a big role? When you look at the amount of materials it takes for even modest increases in wind and solar...and land use....and the the fact that the average useful life is approximately 20 years, why should they play a big role?"
I'm not a big fan of wind, but I'm a *huge* fan of photovoltaics...particularly in sunny places such as: the southern U.S. in general, and the U.S. Southwest in particular; Africa; China, particularly the Gobi Desert; Australia; and many other places.
Why am I such a big fan of photovoltaics?
1) They are quiet and do not produce air emissions, especially of particulate matter;
2) They can be deployed very close to the source of demand, including right on the rooftops of houses and commercial/industrial buildings;
3) In sunny, hot places they are well suited to electrical demand, in that peak production from photovoltaics typically occur near the hours of peak demand;
4) There is ***soooooo*** much room for improvement in photovoltaics, in terms of reducing material use and lowering manufacturing costs.
From that paper, they're talking about printing films that are less than *1000 nanometers* (i.e., that's 0.001 millimeter) thick.(!) But they're potentially achieving 20+ percent conversion efficiencies.(!)
"I do not know of a single energy expert who thinks this can be done."
I haven't closely read his material--only so many hours in a day, and I'm taking a lot more than I should on energy issues already!--but my guess is that Marc Z. Jacobson of Stanford would say it can be done:
I'd also guess Amory Lovins would say it was possible, though I'm even less familiar with his economy-wide thoughts. (I'm a big fan of his micro-energy thoughts, especially thinking about how to get away from being in a two-ton internal combustion engine car to get 5 miles down the road.)
"...the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?
It’s a pretty straightforward question, at least to give your opinion on. Alex Epstein gives his view very clearly. Roger seems more slippery and evasive."
+1 This is excellent. In order to have productive discussions/debates, it's necessary to properly frame questions. So here is your question: "...the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?"
And here is my answer:
1) We need to define what "our lifetimes" means. Per the Beatles, I'm already unimaginably old. At the very outside, I can imagine living another 40 years, and even another 30 would be pretty good (if I could stay reasonably healthy). So do you mean as little as 30 years...or if you yourself are 20 (for example) do you mean 60- 80 years? I don't know...but I'll take 30 years as an assumption, even if you meant considerably longer.
2) We need to define what "practically possible" means. In my opinion, "practically" and "possible" are potentially a bit in conflict. So I'll assume you mean there is something like a 1-in-3 or better chance of that happening.
3) We need to define what "massively reduce" means. By "massively reduce" I'm going to use a value of 80+ percent.
Soooooo....
My simple answer is, "No, absolutely not." Not even for coal, globally.
Potentially in the United States and the former Western Europe will reduce coal use by 80 percent in the next 30 years, but certainly China, India, and other developing countries with recently built coal-fired power plants.
Oil is even less likely to be reduced by more than 80 percent *globally*. Here are the uses of oil in the U.S. at present:
It think there's a reasonable possibility of gasoline usage in the U.S. going down by 80+ percent in 30 years, but the industrial uses of oil are 27% of U.S. usage of oil, and those will be much more difficult to replace. And that's the U.S.
And natural gas? As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" Not only will global use of natural gas not go down by more than 80 percent in 30 years, it probably has at best a 50/50 chance of even declining by 20-40 percent.
So to recap:
Q: "...we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?"
A: No, it is not possible for *renewables* plus batteries to reduce all fossil fuel--or even one fossil fuel, coal--use globally by more than 80 percent in the next 30 years.
Thanks for an extensive and useful response. I’d be interested to see the views of Roger and others if people are still following the ins and outs of this now lengthy comment thread.
One more comment: *Your* question, good as it is, really doesn't address another question, which is about the subtitle to Alex Epstein's "Fossil Future":
"Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less".
The question to that would be: "Is that right?"
And the answer would be: "No, definitely not, even if you're talking about only 10-20 years in the future. Globally, we'll probably be using *less* coal by then. Oil...maybe more, maybe less. Only natural gas would likely be more. But even then, using more natural gas would not necessarily be 'Required for Human Flourishing.'"
Oops! That should have been (capitalized emphasis of missing word added):
"Potentially in the United States and the former Western Europe will reduce coal use by 80 percent in the next 30 years, but certainly NOT China, India, and other developing countries with recently built coal-fired power plants."
"The only transportation most people had for over a century used an ICE and for most people that is still the case."
Yes, but Tesla's market capitalization in 2021 versus its competitors shows that the market thinks very strongly that the future of light duty vehicles is battery electric vehicles, not gasoline powering internal combustion engines. Do you disagree?
Here is a U.S. EIA webpage of gasoline consumption in thousands of barrels per day. What do you think the average value will be for the year 2050?
"Unless of course you think we went straight from horses to Teslas. That's about the level that your comments have been at."
Dean, I'm guessing only one of us has: 1) Studied internal combustion engines and combustion engineering at the university level, 2) interviewed with multiple transportation companies that build internal combustion engine-powered products, and 3) worked as a contractor to the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, studying advances in internal combustion engines and their effects on automobile energy use, to support refinement of EPA ORD's MARKAL (MARKet ALlocation) model of energy use in the U.S. economy.
Now, I know I've done all those things. What about you?
Only one of us has said that internal combustion engines are not necessary for transportation. There aren't enough batteries or charging capacity to switch every ICE to an EV.
Only one of us has said that fossil fuels did not fuel economic growth. Read Robert Gordon's book on the rise and fall of economic growth in the US. He says that the internal combustion engine and the electric grid are the two most important innovations for economic growth.
No, it would not necessarily "likely be wrong" if you formulated the prediction properly. Suppose, for example, you were almost certain it would be more than 8049 barrels per day...the 2020 value. Then you could pick a value even below that, and say, "The average value in 2050 will be more than 7000 barrels per day."
"I thought the discussion here was for the world, not just the US."
We're on a side discussion about internal combustion engines and human ingenuity...whether cars even need internal combustion engines (and therefore any gasoline to power them).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you thought that fossil fuels were why countries become prosperous. I think countries become prosperous--and continue to grow more prosperous, regardless of fossil fuels--if they have political and economic freedom that allows them innovate.
The use of fossil fuels is an innovation of the human mind. You think that human flourishing could happen without the energy sources we depend on, and that it ridiculously wrong.
The original post was about the use of fossil fuels worldwide. You've changed it to gasoline in the US.
Tell us why Robert Gordon was wrong when he said that the internal combustion engine and electric grid were the two most important innovations for creating economic growth.
"Obviously, the world does not need more coal to achieve human flourishing."
So you say. ;-) (And I agree. :-))
But at least that's an easily testable prediction, since it should be clear to anyone who's studied the matter that the world will very likely be using less coal as the years go by.
"I just read that there are over 90 coal powered power plants under construction in China and Asia."
Particularly for China, it's less important how many coal powered plants are being built as how much coal is being consumed. In an economy where to shareholders, it's easy to build things that never get used.
From Statistica, here are China's coal consumption values, in exajoules, for some recent years:
2012 = 80.7
2014 = 82.5
2016 = 80.2
2018 = 81.1
2019 = 81.7
2020 = 82.4
2021 = 86.2
...so basically flat for the last decade, with an uptick in 2021.
"It may be a while before coal use peaks and starts to decline."
I look at it this way: In 2006, I predicted that there was less than a 5% chance global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industry would peak by 2020, a 50/50 chance that global CO2 emissions would peak in 2030, and less than a 5% chance that global CO2 emissions would not peak until 2050. Needless to say, I'm feeling pretty damn smug about those predictions....since all the king's horses and all the king's men of the IPCC couldn't come up with anything even close to as good as that...even to this day. :-)
The required energy transition cannot proceed as fast as climate alarmism claims it should (which is another topic).
One thing that advocates and protesters never consider seriously is that all energy to be used to achieve decarbonization cannot be limited to non-fossil sources. Solar panels, wind turbines, etc. must have a large fossil content. Otherwise, it would take forever to achieve the transition.
In addition, all promotions of electric vehicles and heat pumps need more electricity that is neither available nor planned to be available before quite a long time. These promotions and subsidies are premature and irresponsible because they are truly off the mark.
Whether you like them or not is not the point, fossil fuel reserves are a necessary mean by which the world can eventually get defossilized. This is why more exploration and production are required.
To prevent any sh**storm, I declare that I have no conflict of interest with any energy-related sector (other than my modest personal and home consumption).
Is it desirable? It depends. If it results from policies that inhibit exploration and production of new reserves and reliable, inexpensive clean alternatives are not in place then it will not be a good thing. If the alternatives are ready for prime time then it would probably be desirable.
I remain skeptical that expanding nuclear will make more than just a small dent in fossil fuel consumption. Nuclear electricity has arguably the highest capital cost, highest operating cost, highest regulatory hurdles, longest construction time and least political support of any non-fossil fuel energy source.
I've read a third of Fossil Future and so far you're point: 'Epstein’s argument conflates correlation with causation and also means with ends.' is most evident by insisting on the trope that fossil fuels (and only fossil fuels) can cause and sustain our high achievement in material and economic progress .
I wish Epstein had given this work to a good editor who have cut back the thicket of arguments and maintain his central argument. Surely the thicket could added as addenda in support of hi main thrust.
I haven't read Alex's new book but I read his original book and many of his essays and op-eds. I personally believe that unless we get our act together on nuclear we WILL need more fossil fuels in the future to maintain and spread (to undeveloped countries) the lifestyle we have become accustomed to.
Substantial fossil fuel resources are becoming more difficult to find and more expensive to develop. Policies that disincentivize companies from finding and producing fossil fuels are likely to cause much grief and difficulty in the future.
You write: "I’ve often said that if the IPCC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it."
Yes, you say that often, and it bugs me every time you say it! ;-)
The IPCC isn't "wrong." They're dishonest. They present pseudoscience as science. If the IPCC didn't exist, we wouldn't "have to invent" an organization that presents pseudoscience as science. We'd invent an organization that presents science as science!
What I'm referring to is something that *I've* said many times, which is that the IPCC scenarios are not simply wrong, they're pseudoscience. The fact that the scenarios don't contain estimates of probability of occurrence renders them completely unfalsifiable, which is an absolutely crucial aspect of science.
If I said that if I release drop a baseball from my hand, it will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8 meters per second per second in one scenario, in another scenario at half that; in another scenario it will float in the air, neither rising nor falling; and in another scenario will shoot up to the moon, I haven't made a scientific prediction, I've just been babbling.
Your "cone of probability" diagram(s) of the situation are a good illustration of what's needed, but the IPCC has ***never*** done that! And it's not like such a "cone of probability" simply can't be constructed. Of course it can! In fact, it's already been done, a long, long time ago.
Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper's paper in Science (Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming) way back in 2001 did that. The significant problem with their paper was that they made the ridiculous assumption that all IPCC scenarios had equal probability of occurrence.
As I noted in the postscript of that 2017 post on my blog: "What is surprising to me is that the Wigley and Raper paper was published in Science magazine, and it predicts that there is less than 1 in 20 chance (i.e., a 5% probability) that emissions in the 21st century will be more than 713 GtC. Why was this obviously wrong analysis never corrected? Isn't Science interested in...I don't know...science? Perhaps even more surprising is how in 2009 the RCP 8.5 scenario, with emissions of 1932 GtC, was labeled as 'business as usual' and the so-called 'scientific community' has never corrected that obvious nonsense."
The IPCC is not wrong. They are dishonest. We don't need another dishonest organization to replace them, we need an honest organization. We need an organization that will honestly assess probabilities, even if their assessments turn out later to be wrong.
I don’t interpret the statement “if the IPCC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it” as suggesting that if there weren’t any such thing as the IPCC, someone, somewhere would have reproduced it down to its every flaw, even including blundered projections of Himalayan glacier loss. I interpret this statement as suggesting that if the UN had not created the IPCC, but someone, possibly government, possibly in the scientific community, possibly in some other venue would have concluded it would be useful to scour all relevant research on climate issues, and summarize the main conclusions, very possibly with a low level summary such as the working group reports, and higher-level summaries such as the technical summaries and SPM (although the latter is arguably more a political than a scientific summary.)
If someone has suggested we’d be better off without the IPCC, I suggest there would be something similar, possibly better but possibly worse.
I have the same reaction when Roger talks about how the IPCC would need to be recreated if it didn't exist. He has said several times that he ignores the SPM and other summary documents and he pooh poohs statements by Gutteres as just politics. He lauds the great science done by the scientists (debatable) and seems to refuse to understand that the politicians are just using the scientists to perpetuate their anti human agenda. Frankly I think he's naive.
You wrote: He lauds the great science done by the scientists (debatable) and seems to refuse to understand that the politicians are just using the scientists to perpetuate their anti human agenda. Frankly I think he's naive."
I think the reality is far, far worse that "politicians are just using the scientists". The scientists are being dishonest. They're lying. That's basically the worst possible thing scientists can do, is to lie. That essentially destroys the whole point of science, which is to seek the truth. Climate change scientists are doing tremendous damage to the reputation of science.
I agree with your point about the scientists (many but probably not all) being dishonest.
The dishonesty is of 2 types. One is producing the results that they think their masters want............a lot of this goes on. I would like to see Roger call this out more than he does.
Second is by keeping quiet when their leaders/masters/organizations make blatantly false representations of their results. Some of them go crying to Roger in anonymity refusing to speak out themselves because they fear their careers will be ruined. Roger should advise these "scientists" to grow a pair and show some integrity.
Yes, I simply don't understand how Roger accepts what seems to me to be clear dishonesty involved. He's never going to be allowed to be part of the IPCC process, as he himself has acknowledged. So I don't see how pulling his punches protects him, from the standpoint of his career.
To me, this is an absolutely cut-and-dried example of pseudoscience. *Real* science is self-correcting. So *real* science would have taken the Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper paper of July 2001, which at least resulted in the following predictions for total carbon emissions in the 21st century, in GtC (I've also put the emissions expressed as CO2 in parentheses):
5% chance less than 713 GtC (2614 Gt of CO2)
50% chance less than 1385 GtC (5078 Gt of CO2)
95% chance less than 2323 GtC (8517 Gt of CO2)
...and adjusted the predictions in AR4 and AR5, based on how real-world emissions have played out since 2001. But instead, AR4 have contained *no assessments of probabilities.* And Roger excuses --or more accurately *mischaracterizes*-- it as "The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science." But that's wrong. It's outdated precisely because it isn't science. It's pseudoscience.
An analogy is evolution. Evolution doesn't become "outdated." It changes based on new information. Noah's Ark becomes "outdated," because it isn't science.
The IPCC scenarios are pseudoscience masquerading as science. The IPCC emperor has no clothes, with respect to the IPCC's scenarios. I've been saying and writing that fact for essentially two decades. Roger should say it, too.
Roger, your own response to Alex's books sounds much more like an argument against fossil fuels (FFs) than a sensible argument in favor of the best, most sensible, affordable and practical sources of energy , especially nuclear, in the context of what we can access right here and now. Why would you argue against the obvious and clear practical benefits of continuing FF use simply because the majority world opinion says we have to wean off of them?
I value your opinions, and have ever since your book "The Rightful Place of Science" laid out the best argument FOR the scientific method which I have read since the days of Hodgkin, Huxley and Katz. But you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You support today's "policies focused on dramatically reducing fossil fuel consumption ...to try to eliminate their downsides (like pollution, insecurity, and economic risks)," We have already made huge strides in that respect. This is no longer a reason to stop using them, when the need today is to over-ride the idiotic green agenda of stopping their use due to the CO2 that supposedly threatens us all. The CO2 issue is trivial compared to the damaging effects of transitioning to renewables.
Any thoughts on how the just released BP Energy Outlook 2023 advanced the timing on it's projection for oil demand falling vs. the last two years' reports? Do you think that's mostly Europe's scramble/lesson in energy security?
And how the new BP projection now seems to conflict with the recent EIA STEO and the last two IEA World Energy Outlook projections? Just curious for your thoughts on the divergence.
Roger, I find Alex's forecasts of the future entirely consistent with historical data. While France shows the potential for reducing fossil fuels by using nuclear in combination with reducing energy consumption in general, almost the entire rest of the world is doing the opposite. Asia in particular, where a vast amount of CO2 is emitted, has been dramatically increasing its fossil fuel use. Your counter relies on projections about peak fossil fuel made by IEA. But there is much reason to doubt their projections, which are based on, among other things, promises by China and other governments. They also project substantial take up of EVs and renewables that strain credulity, much less recent real world results. All in all, I find Alex's projections at least as plausible as IEA's.
I came across your review of Fossil Future on Twitter and became a paid subscriber to your Substack simply so I could leave comment as 250 characters on Twitter cannot do the subject justice. I had to ask myself if we read the same Fossil Future; I don’t think we did. For brevity’s sake I’ll focus on what I find most misleading in your review, the assertion that Mr. Epstein doesn’t give nuclear its due by not mentioning France’s example of embracing nuclear power for electricity generation. There are many other assertions with which a knowledge energy policy person, or any unbiased observer who read the book, could take issue.
It is true that Mr. Epstein does not specifically mention how France has increased nuclear and natural gas (a fossil fuel) and decreased coal and oil in its energy mix since 1965; your chart clearly shows this. But you imply that Fossil Future is not pro-nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels and this is simply neither honest or credible if you’ve read the book.
The index of Fossil Future has nearly a page of references to nuclear energy, 21 references in all, many of which are multiple pages. There is even a section titled, “The Suppressed Potential of Nuclear Energy.” Mr. Epstein is a cheerleader for “decriminalizing” nuclear energy and in no way down plays the potential for it to be a cost effective, reliable source of energy that does not produce CO2 or large amounts of harmful waste.
I’d advise anyone who wants to get an alternative perspective from the conventional anti-fossil fuel, anti-human flourishing narrative to pick up a copy of Fossil Future. Any objective observer will find the text nothing like how you portray it in your review.
Wayne Stoltenberg
Former CFO: Vine Energy Inc (NYSE:VEI)
Chairman of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)
Published on Energy Policy in WSJ, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio News Express
Partial replacement beyond 50% seems unlikely. Base load should be coal or nukes, gas is way too valuable and must be saved for demand peaking only. Alex is more correct than Roger in this one. Missing affordability and national security from the discussion makes it a very weak piece. I look forward to the Climate stuff from Roger as it does tend to be sober and objective. Thanks
Anyone who think renewables can replace fossil fuels does not understand the limits of renewables. These are their exceptionally low energy density and the intermittency of the most energy dense form for renewable, namely solar.
The low energy density means that huge amounts of land and materials are required to capture renewable energy. The public will not accept this as the impacts will be worse than those of continuing to burn fossil fuels.
The huge amount of energy required to make and install solar PV is so high that it is not clear that they can generate more energy than is required to make them, at least when installed in higher latitudes (north of the Alps).
The intermittency is a problem because there is affordable way of storing this energy on the required scale. Batteries are still over a 100 times to expensive and there are upper limits in how much they could store.
The total failure of any country or region to replace fossil fuels with intermittent renewables should serve as a warning but it seems the pro-renewable lobby are incredibly effective at hiding these failures.
There really is only one proven way to eliminated fossil fuels, and that is nuclear power. This is expensive but only because it is regulated in an insane way. It could be far cheaper than fossil fuels if we valued deaths nuclear energy the same as deaths from other energy sources. At the moment we value them at least 100 times more, which is irrational.
"Batteries are still over a 100 times to expensive and there are upper limits in how much they could store."
Where did you get "100 times too expensive"?
Estimate how much storage the grid would need where most power from intermittent sources and there was no backup generation from, for example fossil fuels.
In the UK one would need a minimum of 2 weeks storage to avoid having to cut electricity during long windless winter periods, where solar contributes a trivial amount.
The UK grid consumes slightly over 30GW.
For 30 GW of power over 14 days requires at 10 TWh (10^10 kWh) of battery storage.
The current costs of lithium ion batteries is $150/kWh. They have been stagnant at this level for 3 years now.
Calculate the cost of the batteries needed.
$150 x 10^10 = $1.5 trillion.
The UK GDP is ~$3 trillion per year.
You get the picture?
We could NOT conceivably produce this many lithium batteries in the near future. But that is another story...
"For 30 GW of power over 14 days requires at 10 TWh (10^10 kWh) of battery storage. The current costs of lithium ion batteries is $150/kWh. They have been stagnant at this level for 3 years now.
Calculate the cost of the batteries needed.
$150 x 10^10 = $1.5 trillion.
The UK GDP is ~$3 trillion per year.
You get the picture?"
Yes, I get the picture. You're not considering all the possibilities of storage. The company Form Energy is going to start construction later this year on a plant in West Virginia that is intended to produce iron/air batteries with multi-day electrical storage, at a cost of $20/kWh:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/form-energys-20kwh-100-hour-iron-air-battery-could-be-a-substantial-br/603877/
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/form-energy-weirton-west-virginia/640048/
So your picture of $1.5 trillion in cost would instead become 20/150 x $1.5 trillion = $200 billion. And that's not something that needs to be done in a year. Spread that capital expense over 20 years, and the cost becomes $10 billion per year.
And even that ignores another reasonable situation, which would be to simply leave fossil fuel stations in such a condition that they could be started up with a few days' notice. That wouldn't be 100% renewable, but it would be 99% renewable, assuming these two-week periods only occur every few years.
I did not include possible future battery technology in my estimate. We shall have to wait and see if these new batteries are adequate for grid scale storage.
Like hydrogen and ammonium synthesis, battery storage for 100 backup remains speculative and unproven. By all means explore them, but it would be foolish to rely on them working out.
Great discussion.
FYI, from 2000 to 2021, 32 countries reduced their overall fossil fuel consumption
While growing their economies
France is one of them
My Tweet on this
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1621963828161576960?s=20&t=oHOD9rlydNLOzYF1tgh-gQ
As a fairly neutral/“civilian” observer of this debate, I agree that Rogers heavy reliance on the French nuclear example comes across as disingenuous and unconvincing. What we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?
It’s a pretty straightforward question, at least to give your opinion on. Alex Epstein gives his view very clearly. Roger seems more slippery and evasive.
My answer:
"What we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?"
No, this cannot be done
I do not know of a single energy expert who thinks this can be done
Renewables (wind, solar) can play a big role (how big is debated) but alone they cannot get the world off of fossil fuels
My question is why should wind and solar play a big role? When you look at the amount of materials it takes for even modest increases in wind and solar...and land use....and the the fact that the average useful life is approximately 20 years, why should they play a big role? An increase in wind and solar is an increase in fossil fuels to mine the massive amounts of materials in order to get low value intermittent energy. It's just as dumb as supporting ethanol.
"My question is why should wind and solar play a big role? When you look at the amount of materials it takes for even modest increases in wind and solar...and land use....and the the fact that the average useful life is approximately 20 years, why should they play a big role?"
I'm not a big fan of wind, but I'm a *huge* fan of photovoltaics...particularly in sunny places such as: the southern U.S. in general, and the U.S. Southwest in particular; Africa; China, particularly the Gobi Desert; Australia; and many other places.
Why am I such a big fan of photovoltaics?
1) They are quiet and do not produce air emissions, especially of particulate matter;
2) They can be deployed very close to the source of demand, including right on the rooftops of houses and commercial/industrial buildings;
3) In sunny, hot places they are well suited to electrical demand, in that peak production from photovoltaics typically occur near the hours of peak demand;
4) There is ***soooooo*** much room for improvement in photovoltaics, in terms of reducing material use and lowering manufacturing costs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05346-0
From that paper, they're talking about printing films that are less than *1000 nanometers* (i.e., that's 0.001 millimeter) thick.(!) But they're potentially achieving 20+ percent conversion efficiencies.(!)
"I do not know of a single energy expert who thinks this can be done."
I haven't closely read his material--only so many hours in a day, and I'm taking a lot more than I should on energy issues already!--but my guess is that Marc Z. Jacobson of Stanford would say it can be done:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html
I'd also guess Amory Lovins would say it was possible, though I'm even less familiar with his economy-wide thoughts. (I'm a big fan of his micro-energy thoughts, especially thinking about how to get away from being in a two-ton internal combustion engine car to get 5 miles down the road.)
"...the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?
It’s a pretty straightforward question, at least to give your opinion on. Alex Epstein gives his view very clearly. Roger seems more slippery and evasive."
+1 This is excellent. In order to have productive discussions/debates, it's necessary to properly frame questions. So here is your question: "...the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?"
And here is my answer:
1) We need to define what "our lifetimes" means. Per the Beatles, I'm already unimaginably old. At the very outside, I can imagine living another 40 years, and even another 30 would be pretty good (if I could stay reasonably healthy). So do you mean as little as 30 years...or if you yourself are 20 (for example) do you mean 60- 80 years? I don't know...but I'll take 30 years as an assumption, even if you meant considerably longer.
2) We need to define what "practically possible" means. In my opinion, "practically" and "possible" are potentially a bit in conflict. So I'll assume you mean there is something like a 1-in-3 or better chance of that happening.
3) We need to define what "massively reduce" means. By "massively reduce" I'm going to use a value of 80+ percent.
Soooooo....
My simple answer is, "No, absolutely not." Not even for coal, globally.
Potentially in the United States and the former Western Europe will reduce coal use by 80 percent in the next 30 years, but certainly China, India, and other developing countries with recently built coal-fired power plants.
Oil is even less likely to be reduced by more than 80 percent *globally*. Here are the uses of oil in the U.S. at present:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php
It think there's a reasonable possibility of gasoline usage in the U.S. going down by 80+ percent in 30 years, but the industrial uses of oil are 27% of U.S. usage of oil, and those will be much more difficult to replace. And that's the U.S.
And natural gas? As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!" Not only will global use of natural gas not go down by more than 80 percent in 30 years, it probably has at best a 50/50 chance of even declining by 20-40 percent.
So to recap:
Q: "...we are being sold is the idea that it is practically possible for *renewables* plus batteries to massively reduce use of all fossil fuels (not just coal) within our lifetimes. Is this true or is it not?"
A: No, it is not possible for *renewables* plus batteries to reduce all fossil fuel--or even one fossil fuel, coal--use globally by more than 80 percent in the next 30 years.
Thanks for an extensive and useful response. I’d be interested to see the views of Roger and others if people are still following the ins and outs of this now lengthy comment thread.
Thanks.
One more comment: *Your* question, good as it is, really doesn't address another question, which is about the subtitle to Alex Epstein's "Fossil Future":
"Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less".
The question to that would be: "Is that right?"
And the answer would be: "No, definitely not, even if you're talking about only 10-20 years in the future. Globally, we'll probably be using *less* coal by then. Oil...maybe more, maybe less. Only natural gas would likely be more. But even then, using more natural gas would not necessarily be 'Required for Human Flourishing.'"
Oops! That should have been (capitalized emphasis of missing word added):
"Potentially in the United States and the former Western Europe will reduce coal use by 80 percent in the next 30 years, but certainly NOT China, India, and other developing countries with recently built coal-fired power plants."
You think Teslas always existed? The only transportation most people had for over a century used an ICE and for most people that is still the case.
Unless of course you think we went straight from horses to Teslas. That's about the level that your comments have been at.
"The only transportation most people had for over a century used an ICE and for most people that is still the case."
Yes, but Tesla's market capitalization in 2021 versus its competitors shows that the market thinks very strongly that the future of light duty vehicles is battery electric vehicles, not gasoline powering internal combustion engines. Do you disagree?
Here is a U.S. EIA webpage of gasoline consumption in thousands of barrels per day. What do you think the average value will be for the year 2050?
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS2&f=M
"Unless of course you think we went straight from horses to Teslas. That's about the level that your comments have been at."
Dean, I'm guessing only one of us has: 1) Studied internal combustion engines and combustion engineering at the university level, 2) interviewed with multiple transportation companies that build internal combustion engine-powered products, and 3) worked as a contractor to the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, studying advances in internal combustion engines and their effects on automobile energy use, to support refinement of EPA ORD's MARKAL (MARKet ALlocation) model of energy use in the U.S. economy.
Now, I know I've done all those things. What about you?
Only one of us has said that internal combustion engines are not necessary for transportation. There aren't enough batteries or charging capacity to switch every ICE to an EV.
Only one of us has said that fossil fuels did not fuel economic growth. Read Robert Gordon's book on the rise and fall of economic growth in the US. He says that the internal combustion engine and the electric grid are the two most important innovations for economic growth.
So what is your prediction for U.S. average daily gasoline consumption in 2050?
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS2&f=M
If you need some help, from that website, the values for some recent years were:
2017: 9327 thousand barrels per day
2018: 9329 thousand barrels per day
2019: 9309 thousand barrels per day
2020: 8049 thousand barrels per day
2021: 8816 thousand barrels per day
Any prediction for 2050 would likely be wrong. I thought the discussion here was for the world, not just the US.
"Any prediction for 2050 would likely be wrong."
No, it would not necessarily "likely be wrong" if you formulated the prediction properly. Suppose, for example, you were almost certain it would be more than 8049 barrels per day...the 2020 value. Then you could pick a value even below that, and say, "The average value in 2050 will be more than 7000 barrels per day."
"I thought the discussion here was for the world, not just the US."
We're on a side discussion about internal combustion engines and human ingenuity...whether cars even need internal combustion engines (and therefore any gasoline to power them).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you thought that fossil fuels were why countries become prosperous. I think countries become prosperous--and continue to grow more prosperous, regardless of fossil fuels--if they have political and economic freedom that allows them innovate.
The use of fossil fuels is an innovation of the human mind. You think that human flourishing could happen without the energy sources we depend on, and that it ridiculously wrong.
The original post was about the use of fossil fuels worldwide. You've changed it to gasoline in the US.
Tell us why Robert Gordon was wrong when he said that the internal combustion engine and electric grid were the two most important innovations for creating economic growth.
FYI
I have engaged Epstein on Twitter starting here:
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1621558134149095424?s=20&t=WJZwte06e0PimF_I51u0Wg
He has so far ignored a simple question related to his claim that the world requires more coal to achieve human flourishing
Obviously, the world does not need more coal to achieve human flourishing
He'd have been much better off not making this argument, obviously
Let's see if he engages
"Obviously, the world does not need more coal to achieve human flourishing."
So you say. ;-) (And I agree. :-))
But at least that's an easily testable prediction, since it should be clear to anyone who's studied the matter that the world will very likely be using less coal as the years go by.
I just read that there are over 90 coal powered power plants under construction in China and Asia.
It may be a while before coal use peaks and starts to decline.
"I just read that there are over 90 coal powered power plants under construction in China and Asia."
Particularly for China, it's less important how many coal powered plants are being built as how much coal is being consumed. In an economy where to shareholders, it's easy to build things that never get used.
From Statistica, here are China's coal consumption values, in exajoules, for some recent years:
2012 = 80.7
2014 = 82.5
2016 = 80.2
2018 = 81.1
2019 = 81.7
2020 = 82.4
2021 = 86.2
...so basically flat for the last decade, with an uptick in 2021.
"It may be a while before coal use peaks and starts to decline."
I look at it this way: In 2006, I predicted that there was less than a 5% chance global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industry would peak by 2020, a 50/50 chance that global CO2 emissions would peak in 2030, and less than a 5% chance that global CO2 emissions would not peak until 2050. Needless to say, I'm feeling pretty damn smug about those predictions....since all the king's horses and all the king's men of the IPCC couldn't come up with anything even close to as good as that...even to this day. :-)
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/index.html
The required energy transition cannot proceed as fast as climate alarmism claims it should (which is another topic).
One thing that advocates and protesters never consider seriously is that all energy to be used to achieve decarbonization cannot be limited to non-fossil sources. Solar panels, wind turbines, etc. must have a large fossil content. Otherwise, it would take forever to achieve the transition.
In addition, all promotions of electric vehicles and heat pumps need more electricity that is neither available nor planned to be available before quite a long time. These promotions and subsidies are premature and irresponsible because they are truly off the mark.
Whether you like them or not is not the point, fossil fuel reserves are a necessary mean by which the world can eventually get defossilized. This is why more exploration and production are required.
To prevent any sh**storm, I declare that I have no conflict of interest with any energy-related sector (other than my modest personal and home consumption).
HI All, A great discussion here.
I cannot post images to this comment thread (Grrr)
So I posted up an important on at this Tweet
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1621529115403894784?s=20&t=XuymkShSGRrXVKJPVbsaUw
Via IEA WEO 2022, it projects that under current policies that global fossil fuel consumption will peak before 2030.
Is such a peak possible? Certainly
Will it happen? Maybe
Is it desirable? Yes
Each of these are different questions, with different implications for evidence and argument.
How many times has peak oil been predicted? Have any of those predictions come true?
Is such a peak possible? Maybe
Will it happen? Probably not
Is it desirable? It depends. If it results from policies that inhibit exploration and production of new reserves and reliable, inexpensive clean alternatives are not in place then it will not be a good thing. If the alternatives are ready for prime time then it would probably be desirable.
We both have opinions and can make guesses.
I remain skeptical that expanding nuclear will make more than just a small dent in fossil fuel consumption. Nuclear electricity has arguably the highest capital cost, highest operating cost, highest regulatory hurdles, longest construction time and least political support of any non-fossil fuel energy source.
The last three of those problems can be changed by persuasion and logic. Solving those three will also solve the first two.
I've read a third of Fossil Future and so far you're point: 'Epstein’s argument conflates correlation with causation and also means with ends.' is most evident by insisting on the trope that fossil fuels (and only fossil fuels) can cause and sustain our high achievement in material and economic progress .
I wish Epstein had given this work to a good editor who have cut back the thicket of arguments and maintain his central argument. Surely the thicket could added as addenda in support of hi main thrust.
I haven't read Alex's new book but I read his original book and many of his essays and op-eds. I personally believe that unless we get our act together on nuclear we WILL need more fossil fuels in the future to maintain and spread (to undeveloped countries) the lifestyle we have become accustomed to.
Substantial fossil fuel resources are becoming more difficult to find and more expensive to develop. Policies that disincentivize companies from finding and producing fossil fuels are likely to cause much grief and difficulty in the future.
Hi Roger,
You write: "I’ve often said that if the IPCC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it."
Yes, you say that often, and it bugs me every time you say it! ;-)
The IPCC isn't "wrong." They're dishonest. They present pseudoscience as science. If the IPCC didn't exist, we wouldn't "have to invent" an organization that presents pseudoscience as science. We'd invent an organization that presents science as science!
What I'm referring to is something that *I've* said many times, which is that the IPCC scenarios are not simply wrong, they're pseudoscience. The fact that the scenarios don't contain estimates of probability of occurrence renders them completely unfalsifiable, which is an absolutely crucial aspect of science.
If I said that if I release drop a baseball from my hand, it will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8 meters per second per second in one scenario, in another scenario at half that; in another scenario it will float in the air, neither rising nor falling; and in another scenario will shoot up to the moon, I haven't made a scientific prediction, I've just been babbling.
Your "cone of probability" diagram(s) of the situation are a good illustration of what's needed, but the IPCC has ***never*** done that! And it's not like such a "cone of probability" simply can't be constructed. Of course it can! In fact, it's already been done, a long, long time ago.
Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper's paper in Science (Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming) way back in 2001 did that. The significant problem with their paper was that they made the ridiculous assumption that all IPCC scenarios had equal probability of occurrence.
I corrected that error way back in 2006:
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2017/07/mark-bahner-vs-wigley-and-raper-science-2001-vs-ipcc-rcps.html
As I noted in the postscript of that 2017 post on my blog: "What is surprising to me is that the Wigley and Raper paper was published in Science magazine, and it predicts that there is less than 1 in 20 chance (i.e., a 5% probability) that emissions in the 21st century will be more than 713 GtC. Why was this obviously wrong analysis never corrected? Isn't Science interested in...I don't know...science? Perhaps even more surprising is how in 2009 the RCP 8.5 scenario, with emissions of 1932 GtC, was labeled as 'business as usual' and the so-called 'scientific community' has never corrected that obvious nonsense."
The IPCC is not wrong. They are dishonest. We don't need another dishonest organization to replace them, we need an honest organization. We need an organization that will honestly assess probabilities, even if their assessments turn out later to be wrong.
I don’t interpret the statement “if the IPCC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it” as suggesting that if there weren’t any such thing as the IPCC, someone, somewhere would have reproduced it down to its every flaw, even including blundered projections of Himalayan glacier loss. I interpret this statement as suggesting that if the UN had not created the IPCC, but someone, possibly government, possibly in the scientific community, possibly in some other venue would have concluded it would be useful to scour all relevant research on climate issues, and summarize the main conclusions, very possibly with a low level summary such as the working group reports, and higher-level summaries such as the technical summaries and SPM (although the latter is arguably more a political than a scientific summary.)
If someone has suggested we’d be better off without the IPCC, I suggest there would be something similar, possibly better but possibly worse.
I have the same reaction when Roger talks about how the IPCC would need to be recreated if it didn't exist. He has said several times that he ignores the SPM and other summary documents and he pooh poohs statements by Gutteres as just politics. He lauds the great science done by the scientists (debatable) and seems to refuse to understand that the politicians are just using the scientists to perpetuate their anti human agenda. Frankly I think he's naive.
Hi,
You wrote: He lauds the great science done by the scientists (debatable) and seems to refuse to understand that the politicians are just using the scientists to perpetuate their anti human agenda. Frankly I think he's naive."
I think the reality is far, far worse that "politicians are just using the scientists". The scientists are being dishonest. They're lying. That's basically the worst possible thing scientists can do, is to lie. That essentially destroys the whole point of science, which is to seek the truth. Climate change scientists are doing tremendous damage to the reputation of science.
I agree with your point about the scientists (many but probably not all) being dishonest.
The dishonesty is of 2 types. One is producing the results that they think their masters want............a lot of this goes on. I would like to see Roger call this out more than he does.
Second is by keeping quiet when their leaders/masters/organizations make blatantly false representations of their results. Some of them go crying to Roger in anonymity refusing to speak out themselves because they fear their careers will be ruined. Roger should advise these "scientists" to grow a pair and show some integrity.
Yes, I simply don't understand how Roger accepts what seems to me to be clear dishonesty involved. He's never going to be allowed to be part of the IPCC process, as he himself has acknowledged. So I don't see how pulling his punches protects him, from the standpoint of his career.
To me, this is an absolutely cut-and-dried example of pseudoscience. *Real* science is self-correcting. So *real* science would have taken the Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper paper of July 2001, which at least resulted in the following predictions for total carbon emissions in the 21st century, in GtC (I've also put the emissions expressed as CO2 in parentheses):
5% chance less than 713 GtC (2614 Gt of CO2)
50% chance less than 1385 GtC (5078 Gt of CO2)
95% chance less than 2323 GtC (8517 Gt of CO2)
...and adjusted the predictions in AR4 and AR5, based on how real-world emissions have played out since 2001. But instead, AR4 have contained *no assessments of probabilities.* And Roger excuses --or more accurately *mischaracterizes*-- it as "The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science." But that's wrong. It's outdated precisely because it isn't science. It's pseudoscience.
An analogy is evolution. Evolution doesn't become "outdated." It changes based on new information. Noah's Ark becomes "outdated," because it isn't science.
The IPCC scenarios are pseudoscience masquerading as science. The IPCC emperor has no clothes, with respect to the IPCC's scenarios. I've been saying and writing that fact for essentially two decades. Roger should say it, too.
Roger, your own response to Alex's books sounds much more like an argument against fossil fuels (FFs) than a sensible argument in favor of the best, most sensible, affordable and practical sources of energy , especially nuclear, in the context of what we can access right here and now. Why would you argue against the obvious and clear practical benefits of continuing FF use simply because the majority world opinion says we have to wean off of them?
I value your opinions, and have ever since your book "The Rightful Place of Science" laid out the best argument FOR the scientific method which I have read since the days of Hodgkin, Huxley and Katz. But you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You support today's "policies focused on dramatically reducing fossil fuel consumption ...to try to eliminate their downsides (like pollution, insecurity, and economic risks)," We have already made huge strides in that respect. This is no longer a reason to stop using them, when the need today is to over-ride the idiotic green agenda of stopping their use due to the CO2 that supposedly threatens us all. The CO2 issue is trivial compared to the damaging effects of transitioning to renewables.
Great post, Roger.
Any thoughts on how the just released BP Energy Outlook 2023 advanced the timing on it's projection for oil demand falling vs. the last two years' reports? Do you think that's mostly Europe's scramble/lesson in energy security?
And how the new BP projection now seems to conflict with the recent EIA STEO and the last two IEA World Energy Outlook projections? Just curious for your thoughts on the divergence.
Roger, I find Alex's forecasts of the future entirely consistent with historical data. While France shows the potential for reducing fossil fuels by using nuclear in combination with reducing energy consumption in general, almost the entire rest of the world is doing the opposite. Asia in particular, where a vast amount of CO2 is emitted, has been dramatically increasing its fossil fuel use. Your counter relies on projections about peak fossil fuel made by IEA. But there is much reason to doubt their projections, which are based on, among other things, promises by China and other governments. They also project substantial take up of EVs and renewables that strain credulity, much less recent real world results. All in all, I find Alex's projections at least as plausible as IEA's.
I came across your review of Fossil Future on Twitter and became a paid subscriber to your Substack simply so I could leave comment as 250 characters on Twitter cannot do the subject justice. I had to ask myself if we read the same Fossil Future; I don’t think we did. For brevity’s sake I’ll focus on what I find most misleading in your review, the assertion that Mr. Epstein doesn’t give nuclear its due by not mentioning France’s example of embracing nuclear power for electricity generation. There are many other assertions with which a knowledge energy policy person, or any unbiased observer who read the book, could take issue.
It is true that Mr. Epstein does not specifically mention how France has increased nuclear and natural gas (a fossil fuel) and decreased coal and oil in its energy mix since 1965; your chart clearly shows this. But you imply that Fossil Future is not pro-nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels and this is simply neither honest or credible if you’ve read the book.
The index of Fossil Future has nearly a page of references to nuclear energy, 21 references in all, many of which are multiple pages. There is even a section titled, “The Suppressed Potential of Nuclear Energy.” Mr. Epstein is a cheerleader for “decriminalizing” nuclear energy and in no way down plays the potential for it to be a cost effective, reliable source of energy that does not produce CO2 or large amounts of harmful waste.
I’d advise anyone who wants to get an alternative perspective from the conventional anti-fossil fuel, anti-human flourishing narrative to pick up a copy of Fossil Future. Any objective observer will find the text nothing like how you portray it in your review.
Wayne Stoltenberg
Former CFO: Vine Energy Inc (NYSE:VEI)
Chairman of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)
Published on Energy Policy in WSJ, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio News Express
Partial replacement beyond 50% seems unlikely. Base load should be coal or nukes, gas is way too valuable and must be saved for demand peaking only. Alex is more correct than Roger in this one. Missing affordability and national security from the discussion makes it a very weak piece. I look forward to the Climate stuff from Roger as it does tend to be sober and objective. Thanks